Title
Destileria Limtuaco and Co., Inc. vs. Advertising Board of the Philippines
Case
G.R. No. 164242
Decision Date
Nov 28, 2008
AdBoard, a private advertising regulator, revoked clearance for a controversial ad by petitioners, who challenged its authority. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling AdBoard’s self-regulation is voluntary and not subject to prohibition, upholding its actions as non-state, contractual, and constitutional.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 80593)

Applicable Law and Remedial Actions

In January 2004, Destileria, through its advertising agency SLG Advertising, sought and received clearance from AdBoard for a radio advertisement titled "Ginagabi (Nakatikim ka na ba ng Kinse Anyos)." Subsequently, public complaints led AdBoard to request withdrawal of the advertisement, which was not heeded, prompting AdBoard to revoke the clearance. Following this revocation, the petitioners filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati (Civil Case No. 04-277), aiming for the dissolution of AdBoard, revocation of its registration, and nullification of its Code of Ethics for Advertising.

Legal Foundations of Petitioners' Claims

The petitioners contended that the advertising clearance requirement constitutes a violation of their constitutional rights, specifically their right to advertise and property rights, arguing that it represents a deprivation of property without due process. They further asserted that AdBoard's exercise of regulatory authority amounted to an impermissible exercise of police power, necessitating constitutional compliance.

Respondent's Defense

In response, AdBoard moved for dismissal based on procedural grounds, arguing that the petition failed to comply with hierarchy of courts, and lacked necessary documentation and certification. On merits, AdBoard claimed authority derived from members' voluntary submission to its jurisdiction, affirming the legality of self-regulatory functions.

Nature of the Petition

The petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to prevent AdBoard from enforcing the clearance requirement. Under Rule 65 of the Philippine Rules of Court, the requisites for such a writ include the existence of a tribunal or organization acting in excess of jurisdiction, and the absence of other legal remedies.

Judicial Function and Writ of Prohibition

However, the Court determined that AdBoard was not a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Instead, it derived its authority as a private organization sanctioned by its members, thus outside the ambit of a writ of prohibition, traditionally aimed at public officers overstepping their legal mandates.

Forum Shopping and Jurisdictional Overlap

The Court f

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.